Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. BACKGROUND: Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined. METHODS: In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+. RESULTS: Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). BACKGROUND: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P =0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P =0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P =0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P =0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P =0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P <0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Model to predict major complications following liver resection for HCC in patients with metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. AIMS: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. RESULTS: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%-78.2%) ( https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/ ). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

THERE ARE NO ADVANTAGES BETWEEN LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN LIVER RESECTIONS WITHIN AN ENHANCED RECOVERY PROGRAM (ERAS).

BACKGROUND: The use of a successful Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in colorectal surgery favored its application in other organs, and hepatic resections were not excluded from this tendency. Some authors suggest that the laparoscopic approach is a central element to obtain better results. AIM: To compare the laparoscopic vs. open hepatic resections within an ERAS to evaluate if there are any differences between them. METHODS: In a descriptive study 80 hepatic resections that were divided into two groups, regarding to whether they were submitted to laparoscopy or open surgery. Demographic data, those referring to the hepatectomy and the ERAS was analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-seven resections were carried out in open surgery and the rest laparoscopically; in the first group there was only one conversion to open surgery. Of the total, 17 resections were major hepatectomies and in 18 simultaneous resections. There were no differences between procedures regarding hospital stay and number of complications. There was a greater adherence to the ERAS (p=0.046) and a faster ambulation (p=0.001) in the open surgery. CONCLUSION: The procedure, whether open or laparoscopically done in hepatic resections, does not seem to show differences in an ERAS evaluation.

Pure Laparoscopic Anatomic Resection of the Segment 8 Dorsal Area Using the Dorsal Approach of the Right Hepatic Vein.

BACKGROUND: Anatomical resection of segment 8 (s8) is a challenging procedure. S8 can be subdivided into two areas: ventral (s8v) and dorsal (s8d). In the last years, different approaches for performing laparoscopic resection of s8 or any of its subsegments have been described, i.e. the hilar extrafascial approach, transfissural approach for s8v, transparenchymal approach for s8d, and the intrahepatic Glissonean approach. We recently described the dorsal approach of the right hepatic vein (RHV) for anatomical segment 7 resection. This video report describes the approach to a dorsal s8 pedicle using the RHV dorsal approach. METHODS: A 50-year-old woman with a history of morbid obesity and sleep apnea was diagnosed after episodes of hematochezia sigmoid cancer and a 2-cm liver metastases in the s8d, according to vascular reconstruction (Cella Medical Solutions, Murcia, Spain). The surgical technique started with mobilization of the right liver until the root of the RHV was identified and exposed in a craniocaudal fashion and until the s8d Glissonean pedicle was identified and clamped. Indocyanine green counterstaining depicted an intersegmental plane between the s8d and segment 5 and s8v. Transection continued until the anterior fissural vein was exposed at its root, as a landmark of the medial plane. RESULTS: Operative time lasted 265 min. Transection was carried out using the intermittent Pringle maneuver over a period of 81 min. Estimated blood loss was 252 cc. There were no postoperative complications and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 2. CONCLUSIONS: In some cases, the RHV dorsal approach can be used as the landmark for the s8d Glissonean pedicle, allowing anatomical resection of this particular area.

There are no advantages between laparoscopic and open liver resections within an enhanced recovery program (eras) / Não há vantagens entre as ressecções hepáticas laparoscópicas e abertas dentro de um programa de recuperação avançada (eras/acerto)

ABSTRACT Background: The use of a successful Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in colorectal surgery favored its application in other organs, and hepatic resections were not excluded from this tendency. Some authors suggest that the laparoscopic approach is a central element to obtain better results. Aim: To compare the laparoscopic vs. open hepatic resections within an ERAS to evaluate if there are any differences between them. Methods: In a descriptive study 80 hepatic resections that were divided into two groups, regarding to whether they were submitted to laparoscopy or open surgery. Demographic data, those referring to the hepatectomy and the ERAS was analyzed. Results: Forty-seven resections were carried out in open surgery and the rest laparoscopically; in the first group there was only one conversion to open surgery. Of the total, 17 resections were major hepatectomies and in 18 simultaneous resections. There were no differences between procedures regarding hospital stay and number of complications. There was a greater adherence to the ERAS (p=0.046) and a faster ambulation (p=0.001) in the open surgery. Conclusion: The procedure, whether open or laparoscopically done in hepatic resections, does not seem to show differences in an ERAS evaluation.

RESUMO Racional: O uso do protocolo Recuperação Otimizada Após Cirurgia (ERAS/ACERTO) com sucesso na cirurgia colorretal favoreceu a aplicação dele em outros órgãos; as ressecções hepáticas não foram excluídas dessa tendência. Alguns autores sugerem que a abordagem laparoscópica é elemento central para a obtenção de melhores resultados. Objetivo: Comparar as ressecções hepáticas laparoscópicas e abertas dentro de um ACERTO para avaliar se existem diferenças entre as duas técnicas. Métodos: Estudo descritivo comparando 80 ressecções hepáticas divididas em dois grupos, as realizadas por laparoscopia e aquelas por laparotomia. Foram analisados dados demográficos, referentes à hepatectomia e ao ACERTO. Resultados: Foram realizadas 47 ressecções por laparotomia e o restante por laparoscopia; houve apenas uma conversão para laparotomia no grupo da laparoscopia. Do total, 17 ressecções foram hepatectomias maiores e em 18 ressecções simultâneas. Não houve diferenças entre os procedimentos quanto ao tempo de internação e número de complicações. Houve maior adesão ao ACERTO (p=0,046) e deambulação mais rápida (p=0,001) na operação aberta. Conclusão: O procedimento, seja laparotômico ou laparoscópico nas ressecções hepáticas, não parece mostrar diferenças em uma avaliação ERAS/ACERTO.